4 ms·

> australia and america have the same agreement This has no basis whatsoever in Australian law. Procuring someone else to do it on your behalf is still an of

> australia and america have the same agreement This has no basis whatsoever in Australian law. Procuring someone else to do it on your behalf is still an offence under s 7(1) of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth). TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION AND ACCESS) ACT 1979 - SECT 7 Telecommunications not to be intercepted (1) A person shall not: (a) intercept; (b) authorize, suffer or permit another person to intercept; or (c) do any act or thing that will enable him or her or another person to intercept; a communication passing over a telecommunications system.

Atreiden 6mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes
- bigfatkitten 6mo ago
  How about we refer to a primary source instead. https://www.nsa.gov/Helpful-Links/NSA-FOIA/Declassification-Transparency-Initiatives/Historical-Releases/UKUSA/smdpage14704/3/ https://www.nsa.gov/Helpful-Links/NSA-FOIA/Declassification-... Which provision of the treaty purports to enable this conduct?
Citizen_Lame 6mo ago
Well you have reality and "laws".
- bigfatkitten 6mo ago
  In this case we have law, which gives effect to treaties and binds the employees of the intelligence agencies, and then we have the unsupported conspiracy theories that you’re mindlessly parroting here.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  - mikey2410 6mo ago
    Yeah, the Australian government always ensures it's agencies follow the law and punish only wrongdoers. David McBride made up the stuff he reported, right?
  - DANmode 6mo ago
    > unsupported conspiracy theories that you’re mindlessly parroting here. Imagine my nonsurprise, stumbling upon more evidence for your (bigfatkitten) having a lack of essential information from the Snowden disclosures, and colloquial explanations of operations during interviews and talks. Contested. Very supported theories.
anonymousiam 6mo ago
[flagged]

Atreiden 6mo ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes

bigfatkitten 6mo ago
How about we refer to a primary source instead. https://www.nsa.gov/Helpful-Links/NSA-FOIA/Declassification-Transparency-Initiatives/Historical-Releases/UKUSA/smdpage14704/3/ https://www.nsa.gov/Helpful-Links/NSA-FOIA/Declassification-... Which provision of the treaty purports to enable this conduct?

Citizen_Lame 6mo ago

Well you have reality and "laws".

bigfatkitten 6mo ago
In this case we have law, which gives effect to treaties and binds the employees of the intelligence agencies, and then we have the unsupported conspiracy theories that you’re mindlessly parroting here.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- mikey2410 6mo ago
  Yeah, the Australian government always ensures it's agencies follow the law and punish only wrongdoers. David McBride made up the stuff he reported, right?
- DANmode 6mo ago
  > unsupported conspiracy theories that you’re mindlessly parroting here. Imagine my nonsurprise, stumbling upon more evidence for your (bigfatkitten) having a lack of essential information from the Snowden disclosures, and colloquial explanations of operations during interviews and talks. Contested. Very supported theories.

anonymousiam 6mo ago

[flagged]